No abstract

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have mild disease with unspecific symptoms, but about 5% become critically ill with respiratory failure, septic shock and multiple organ failure. An unknown proportion of infected individuals never experience COVID-19 symptoms although they are infectious, that is, they remain asymptomatic. Those who develop the disease, go through a presymptomatic period during which they are infectious. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infections to detect individuals who are infected before they present clinically, could therefore be an important measure to contain the spread of the disease. ObjectivesWe conducted a rapid review to assess (1) the e ectiveness of universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no screening and (2) the accuracy of universal screening in people who have not presented to clinical care for symptoms of COVID-19. Search methods An information specialist searchedOvid MEDLINE and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database up to 26 May 2020. We searched Embase.com, the CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Covid-19 Study Register on 14 April 2020. We searched LitCovid to 4 April 2020. The World Health Organization (WHO) provided records from daily searches in Chinese databases and in PubMed up to 15 April 2020. We also searched three model repositories (Covid-Analytics, Models of Infectious Disease Agent Study [MIDAS], and Society for Medical Decision Making) on 8 April 2020. Selection criteriaTrials, observational studies, or mathematical modelling studies assessing screening e ectiveness or screening accuracy among general populations in which the prevalence of SARS-CoV2 is unknown.Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review (Review)

the aim of this systematic review was to assess the performance of anthropometric tools to determine obesity in the general population (CRD42018086888). Our review included 32 studies. To detect obesity with body mass index (BMI), the meta-analyses rendered a sensitivity of 51.4% (95% CI 38.5-64.2%) and a specificity of 95.4% (95% CI 90.7-97.8%) in women, and 49.6% (95% CI 34.8-64.5%) and 97.3% (95% CI 92.1-99.1%), respectively, in men. For waist circumference (WC), the summary estimates for the sensitivity were 62.4% (95% CI 49.2-73.9%) and 88.1% for the specificity (95% CI 77.0-94.2%) in men, and 57.0% (95% CI 32.2-79.0%) and 94.8% (95% CI 85.8-98.2%), respectively, in women. The data were insufficient to pool the results for waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) but were similar to BMI and WC. In conclusion, BMI and WC have serious limitations for use as obesity screening tools in clinical practice despite their widespread use. No evidence supports that WHR and WHtR are more suitable than BMI or WC to assess body fat. However, due to the lack of more accurate and feasible alternatives, BMI and WC might still have a role as initial tools for assessing individuals for excess adiposity until new evidence emerges. Obesity is widely recognised as a pandemic public health problem. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2016 more than 650 million adults worldwide were obese 1. These numbers have almost tripled since 1975 2. Obesity increases the risk for many chronic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases and cancers 3 , and is possibly associated with mental health disorders 4. Associations have been shown to be strongest between obesity and the incidence of diabetes mellitus, particularly in women (risk ratio [RR] 12.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.03-17.06). Primary care is considered one of the main settings for the prevention, screening and management of obesity 5. Individual studies indicate that patients are more likely to lose weight when they receive recommendations for lifestyle changes from their primary care physicians 6. Because it can be difficult for physicians to accurately determine obesity solely through visually inspecting their patients 7 , they need a reliable, efficient screening tool in order to ensure that those who need management and treatment receive it. WHO conceptualises obesity as "abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health" 1. It is most commonly assessed using body mass index (BMI), a simple and quick anthropometric tool that has a low cost. Adults with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 are classified as being obese 1 (Table 1). However, several researchers and professional associations 8-14 consider the use of BMI as the primary clinical index of obesity insufficient. They have called for a new definition that fully accounts for the complexity of the disease relating to the quantity, distribution and secretory function of adipose tissue. A substantial body of evidence has shown that obesity (BMI ≥ 30) is ass...

ObjectivesOccupational injuries and diseases are a huge public health problem and cause extensive suffering and loss of productivity. Nevertheless, many occupational health and safety (OHS) guidelines are still not based on the best available evidence. In the last decade, numerous systematic reviews on behavioural, relational and mixed interventions to reduce occupational injuries and diseases have been carried out, but a comprehensive synopsis is yet missing. The aim of this overview of reviews is to provide a comprehensive basis to inform evidence-based decision-making about interventions in the field of OHS.MethodsWe conducted an overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) for relevant systematic reviews published between January 2008 and June 2018. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews with the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool.ResultsWe screened 2287 abstracts and 200 full-texts for eligibility. Finally, we included 25 systematic reviews with a low risk of bias for data synthesis and analysis. We identified systematic reviews on the prevention of occupational injuries, musculoskeletal, skin and lung diseases, occupational hearing impairment and interventions without specific target diseases. Several interventions led to consistently positive results on individual diseases; other interventions did not show any effects, or the studies are contradictory. We provide detailed results on all included interventions.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive overview of behavioural, relational and mixed interventions and their effectiveness in preventing occupational injuries and diseases. It provides policymakers with an important basis for making evidence-based decisions on interventions in this field.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018100341

ObjectiveTo summarise evidence on the preventive effects of continuing education on mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s-type dementia in adults 45 years or older.DesignSystematic review and overview of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe systematically searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Scopus for published studies and grey literature databases for unpublished studies from January 1990 to April 2018.MethodsTo assess evidence directly addressing our objectives, we conducted a systematic review. Because we were aware of a dearth of direct evidence, we also performed an overview of systematic reviews on leisure activities that mimic formal continuing education. We a priori established the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two authors independently assessed inclusion and exclusion at the abstract and full-text level, rated the risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We resolved all discrepancies by consensus. We synthesised the available evidence narratively.ResultsOur searches identified 4933 citations. For the systematic review, only two publications on the same prospective cohort study (Tasmanian Healthy Brain Project) met the inclusion criteria; for the overview of reviews, we included five systematic reviews. Based on 459 participants, preliminary data of the ongoing cohort study indicated that cognitive reserve statistically significantly increased in persons attending university classes compared with the control group (92.5% vs 55.7%, p<0.01). Likewise, language processing capacities statistically significantly improved (p<0.01). Episodic memory, working memory and executive function did not differ significantly between groups. Systematic reviews consistently reported a positive association between participation in cognitively stimulating leisure activities and reduced incidence of dementia and improved cognitive test performance.ConclusionAvailable results demonstrate that cognitive reserve increases through continuing education and show a positive association of cognitive leisure activities with both improved cognitive function and lower dementia incidence.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017063944.